17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: − − ::Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST) Line 833:
Line 831: − :User:Gryfin is ignoring the constant refinements made to the definitions of the SI units. In 1983, the definition of a meter was changed to "The distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 second". Given that the experiments were conducted in SI units and Energy is measured in Joules, the proportionality constant determined by those measurements works out to be the speed of light (in SI units) squared. This has nothing to do with light or relating the speed of light to mass or to the Book of Genesis. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT) − ::When I left the comment above, I had not realized that other people had responded to Gryfin, but that their responses were deleted. You can check the history of this page for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AE%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1040260&oldid=1040259 yourself.] I personally do not find this to be an attack, but rather an explanation that E=mc<sup>2</sup> works in both directions. You can start with the amount of mass that was converted into energy and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of energy that was released, or you can start with the amount of energy released, and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of mass that was converted. We are all friends here and can disagree without being disagreeable. I know that some people are still learning physics or are confused about how E=mc<sup>2</sup> does '''not''' involve the theory of general relativity. We now have 100 years of verifiable evidence that the equation shows the relationship between energy and mass. I have a great deal of respect for AugustO, who has contributed to many areas of this project. User:Gryfin has limited himself to debating this equation and relativity, perhaps to promote a specific book and website. The idea of mass-energy equivalence is just as easy to visualize as the idea of potential vs. kinetic energy. Any good physics book can explain both ideas. − ::While I wish everyone the best, we must face the fact that many people are judging the entire project based on the contents of this one page, and that some editors are discouraged from participating further in CP based on the way this issue has been handled. Let's work this out with a spirit of respect, fellowship and understanding. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 13 March 2013 (EDT) − :::Gryfin, you seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between basic units and derived units. As for ''Arbitrary values cannot validate the tangible.'' That sounds nice, but doesn't make sense. But I won't get drawn into a discussion on lofty topics with someone who has problems with the very basics... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 15 March 2013 (EDT) − − ==Lead paragraph== − A couple of weeks ago, I moved the discussion of the "popular culture" references to E=mc<sup>2</sup> to a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the lead section. On March 11 it was reverted. [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] advises, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long." I believe we have a well-written article here except for the lead section. As it stands now, the lead section is not a summary of the rest of the article. It reads as though someone who does not understand the article came in and added a parody of it to the lead section. I will wait a week for a reply and then correct the article to conform to CP's style for writing proper articles. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT) − − :I agree that the Lead seems at odds with the rest of the article. The conflict, as I see it, is that on the one hand we want to make referenced verifiable statements, but on the other hand, we don't want to give any credence to a crackpot theory that drives people away from scripture. I think we can accomplish both. There are plenty of articles on non-Christian and liberal topics -- Islam, Communism, etc. Why not present E=mc^2 as a similar system of beliefs. Accurately parrot what a group of people say about matter and energy, but effectively bracket all the content with "liberals believe (_____)". Then everything within those brackets can at least be the actual claptrap that liberals promote. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 11:27, 17 March 2013 (EDT) − ::From everything that I have read, social conservatives and political conservatives believe that E=mc<sup>2</sup> is true. I understand that there is some controversy about general relativity, but I have never read any coherent source that explains how it "drives people away from scripture." E=mc<sup>2</sup> is one of many beautiful facts about nature that support the idea of a creator; many people say that the development of the Atom bomb just in time to end World War II was God-inspired. Please direct me to a serious source to the contrary, and I will take a look. (A self-published book is not the type of reliable source that would convince me.) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:19, 21 March 2013 (EDT) − − :::Maybe there is evidence that RINOs like Karl Rove or Arnold Schwarzenegger believe the equation, but I've never heard a real conservative support it. I think Mr Schlafly himself used language to the effect that it moves people away from the Bible. Isn't that "coherent" enough? [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 15:51, 21 March 2013 (EDT) − ::::You weren't able to find out the views of Karl Rove or Arnold Schwarzenegger on the subject of an esoteric point of the Theory of Relativity? Why is that? Could it be that one is a political activist and the other is a former bodybuilder, actor, and governor? Like most people, they can't be expected to have specific views on this. I would guess that you would not get any specific answer if you were to ask other people of various political stripes--Nancy Pelosi, Bill O'Reilly, Todd Akin, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, and so on. − ::::So here's what I suggest you do. Talk to people you know, who you believe are true conservatives. I don't know who your contacts would be--people in your church, school, work, whatever. Now, don't ask them whether they have evidence about the truth or falsity of E=mc^2, they probably won't know. But you can ask about the atomic weights of Radium, Radon, and Helium, and that will give you an answer. Now most people don't go around with the atomic weights of various isotopes on the tip of their tongue either. So ask this: How would you go about finding the atomic weights of these elements? Before the rise of the internet, the answer would be simple. Look in a physics textbook, or in Encyclopedia Brittanica or whatever. Now they might name a web site, perhaps Wikipedia, or some textbook. They might name Conservapedia. Disclaimer: I just added the atomic weights here at Conservapedia, and you might consider me a biased observer. So you might not want to take my word for it. (If you think there are better, conservative, values for these, feel free to edit them in. You might want to set the atomic weights of all isotopes to the nucleon number times the atomic weight of neutral Hydrogen. That would make E=mc^2 false. But I digress.) Anyway, find out what people think. Good luck. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:01, 21 March 2013 (EDT) − :::::We need to be fair to the reader. To have a coherent article, the article must first state what the equation means, then give its history, then report why the people who believe it including the experimental evidence, then present the arguments from the people who do not believe it and finally, throw in the popular culture items. This lets the reader follow the discussion. The lead paragraph should not become so long as to defeat its summary purpose. Please remember our responsibility to have a coherent encyclopedia not a tit for tat word game. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:39, 24 March 2013 (EDT) − I am going to wait a week for further comments, and if nobody objects, I will make the reorganization discussed above. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:42, 27 March 2013 (EDT) − :It sounds like the most convincing evidence supports an interpretation of E=mc^2 where 'm' represent a ''change'' in mass corresponding to a ''change'' in energy 'E'. We should explain the formula in these terms. Then, point out the extended interpretation of mass-energy equivalence, with the disclaimer that it is a liberal idea. It would be supported by the example of matter/antimatter annihilation, if such a thing were real. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:59, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
no edit summary
:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)
:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)
::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 11 2013
[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 11 2013